T
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Australia's last two world cup campaigns says otherwise.........
As does the reported $2.4m a year he was offered by Wasps.
dru
David Wilson (68)
It's scraping the barrel bottom when we need Georgina as statement of evidence - and even then her wording is "understood to be" ie not a claim of fact.
As it turns out some others of us have an understanding too - he took a year off. He negotiated pay for a three year period that covered two years of wages spread over the three.
Yes it was a generous offer by the ARU, and well negotiated by David "Greenpeace" Pocock. And there was always a risk on getting playing time for the wages in effect paid in advance (the sabatical) if he got injured. This risk does not cover a pre-existing injury which was a background risk anyway that is called rugby.
Indeed. Frustration completely shared.
Of course $750k is a lot of money. It is substantially less than Pocock demands on the open market per season though.
If RA had paid him zero dollars in 2017 then the amounts paid in 2018 and 2019 would have been far higher (well, $375k per year higher).
But of course some people are choosing to believe that the salary he gets in 2018 and 2019 is what he needs to be paid and the 2017 payments are money for doing nothing.
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
BH, that would all be fine if, at the same time we were paying him $750k for time away from the game, he wasn't also getting paid to pay in Japan.
No question of this guy's ability, and if the ARU decides it's worth keeping him on a retainer of $750k to allow him time off the game and ensure he comes back to us, that's fine. However, to then get paid, at the same time, by someone else to play rugby, getting injured as a result and missing half our season, to me that's right out of line. Okay, he may be back for the internationals, but what if he wasn't.
No question of this guy's ability, and if the ARU decides it's worth keeping him on a retainer of $750k to allow him time off the game and ensure he comes back to us, that's fine. However, to then get paid, at the same time, by someone else to play rugby, getting injured as a result and missing half our season, to me that's right out of line. Okay, he may be back for the internationals, but what if he wasn't.
Structuring the Japanese seasons into his contract seems like a pretty key element to coming up with an overall package that is competitive to what he can demand in Europe. Of course that comes with a risk that he will get injured playing for a non-Australian side but it also means someone else is footing the bill for a substantial part of the overall pay package.
The amount required to be paid by RA for his services would be substantially higher if the only teams Pocock was playing for across those three years were the Brumbies and Wallabies.
The amount required to be paid by RA for his services would be substantially higher if the only teams Pocock was playing for across those three years were the Brumbies and Wallabies.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
1. He didn't get injured playing in Japan.
2. The only reason he's missing any games now (4 weeks?) is because the Brumbies insisted he have the surgery.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
Well depends on who you ask.
So some Yanks would probably see Pocock as earning just more than the middle class!
Additionally, when you look at that salary and compare it to other sports, NBA, NFL, Football (Soccer), that $750k is a few weeks work for the best stars in the business. So I don't think it's all that outlandish that one of the best stars in Rugby is paid a decent wicket.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
We all believe what we choose to believe - including you in this very post.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
If people disagreeing with you causes you frustration, then the internet is a place to avoid.
Please advise how your "understanding" stems from a source any more or less reliable than others. Or are you forming this understanding on what you have learnt from a variety of secondary sources, just like most of the rest of us?
Possibly it's just that others form views based on the same or similar information that you have. It's not unusual that human beings form different views based on essentially the same evidence. I'm not sure why you find it so confronting that this is so.
dru
David Wilson (68)
If people disagreeing with you causes you frustration, then the internet is a place to avoid.
Please advise how your "understanding" stems from a source any more or less reliable than others. Or are you forming this understanding on what you have learnt from a variety of secondary sources, just like most of the rest of us?
Possibly it's just that others form views based on the same or similar information that you have. It's not unusual that human beings form different views based on essentially the same evidence. I'm not sure why you find it so confronting that this is so.
I'm not making the claim. It would be traditional for the claimant to back up the claim. In this case the evidence is shown as guesswork. I see no need to hunt further with nothing of substance onn the table in the first place.
You realise this is boorish, right?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
At least you acknowledge that everything he does is done for his own benefit - despite his public pronouncements.
When is he getting married?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I know, which is why I find it fascinating that you want to keep it going - particularly when you seem to find it so annoying and claim it's nothing of substance.
I made one post and left it. Since that point I've simply replied to other people - you'll note that I haven't engaged in a war of opinion in any of these replies, I've simply pointed out that it's possible for two people to come to different conclusions based on similar information.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I’m not sure where the supposed hypocrisy lies here?
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Its fairly clear that many people just don't understand the way contracts work nor the circumstances behind why Pocock had surgery on his knee.
Poey wanted time off, RA wanted to make sure he returned and retained his services.
So if RA want exclusive rights to him, they must contract him and that involves paying him. Should they not, he may not be available for the RWC. They are aware that he can earn plenty more money in less time playing in Europe that would adequately cover his "time off". RA would also be aware that they could have paid him more to not play in Japan. He was willing to play in Japan to earn the extra money. The risk of injury and time available for recovery prior to the RA priority (RWC) should he be injured indicated that RA was best placed to allow him to play in Japan and the risk was offset by the financial saving.
The practise of contracting players and paying them during periods of rest is not new.The NZRU has taken this approach for a awhile now and Izzy is also another example.
In respect to Poey's circumstances, as reported in the media, he has a degenerative knee condition (I believe due to previous knee injuries) that will require "clean ups".
What cause the need for clean ups is walking, running, bending, or general exercise/movement. General use includes things like gardening, walking to the toilet, boarding planes, chasing rhinos and playing sports.
Here is the background for certain people who still are yet to understand whats going on:
The 29-year-old has been plagued by a meniscus problem in his knee since well before he went on his break at the end of 2016, with the Wallabies medical staff hopeful they could manage it by non-surgical means.
Sadly they couldn’t, and leading orthopedic surgeon Peter Myers was forced to operate. The good news is that Pocock should not be playing injured this year. The bad news, however, is that he now faces a rehabilitation that potentially could put him out of action for half the Brumbies’ season.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/499c3da503b60ae222a48ccde8fb9398
The decision to go under the knife on the eve of Super Rugby after such a lengthy time away from Australia raised eyebrows.
Pocock acknowledged he could have had surgery earlier to prevent missing gametime, but added it wasn’t rare for a player to carry an injury.
“I guess it’s one of those things that I probably could have done it (the surgery earlier),” Pocock said.
“But (coach) Dan McKellar at the Brumbies was keen to get it done."
“You carry injuries for so much of the season and to have a coach that’s keen to have you injury free is pretty nice.”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...y/news-story/15d0f12c14881fe8daa0abdd27eb7917
McKellar admitted it was a tough decision to put Pocock under the knife but would not be drawn into comment as to why it wasn't done during his sabbatical last year.
"The choices were keep pushing through and managing a knee that wasn't allowing him to perform at 100 per cent or go in and bite the bullet and get the surgery done so we have a world-class player being able to train and perform at the level we expect," McKellar said.
"It was a joint decision, obviously you talk to the player and consider what's in the best interest of the player and club, these decisions are always tough.
"Until you get an arthroscope in the knee, you're not sure what you're dealing with, it could it have been couple of weeks, but it is what it is and now we're dealing with it."
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...ock-void-with-young-guns-20180122-h0m0q2.html
Poey wanted time off, RA wanted to make sure he returned and retained his services.
So if RA want exclusive rights to him, they must contract him and that involves paying him. Should they not, he may not be available for the RWC. They are aware that he can earn plenty more money in less time playing in Europe that would adequately cover his "time off". RA would also be aware that they could have paid him more to not play in Japan. He was willing to play in Japan to earn the extra money. The risk of injury and time available for recovery prior to the RA priority (RWC) should he be injured indicated that RA was best placed to allow him to play in Japan and the risk was offset by the financial saving.
The practise of contracting players and paying them during periods of rest is not new.The NZRU has taken this approach for a awhile now and Izzy is also another example.
In respect to Poey's circumstances, as reported in the media, he has a degenerative knee condition (I believe due to previous knee injuries) that will require "clean ups".
What cause the need for clean ups is walking, running, bending, or general exercise/movement. General use includes things like gardening, walking to the toilet, boarding planes, chasing rhinos and playing sports.
Here is the background for certain people who still are yet to understand whats going on:
The 29-year-old has been plagued by a meniscus problem in his knee since well before he went on his break at the end of 2016, with the Wallabies medical staff hopeful they could manage it by non-surgical means.
Sadly they couldn’t, and leading orthopedic surgeon Peter Myers was forced to operate. The good news is that Pocock should not be playing injured this year. The bad news, however, is that he now faces a rehabilitation that potentially could put him out of action for half the Brumbies’ season.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/499c3da503b60ae222a48ccde8fb9398
The decision to go under the knife on the eve of Super Rugby after such a lengthy time away from Australia raised eyebrows.
Pocock acknowledged he could have had surgery earlier to prevent missing gametime, but added it wasn’t rare for a player to carry an injury.
“I guess it’s one of those things that I probably could have done it (the surgery earlier),” Pocock said.
“But (coach) Dan McKellar at the Brumbies was keen to get it done."
“You carry injuries for so much of the season and to have a coach that’s keen to have you injury free is pretty nice.”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...y/news-story/15d0f12c14881fe8daa0abdd27eb7917
McKellar admitted it was a tough decision to put Pocock under the knife but would not be drawn into comment as to why it wasn't done during his sabbatical last year.
"The choices were keep pushing through and managing a knee that wasn't allowing him to perform at 100 per cent or go in and bite the bullet and get the surgery done so we have a world-class player being able to train and perform at the level we expect," McKellar said.
"It was a joint decision, obviously you talk to the player and consider what's in the best interest of the player and club, these decisions are always tough.
"Until you get an arthroscope in the knee, you're not sure what you're dealing with, it could it have been couple of weeks, but it is what it is and now we're dealing with it."
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...ock-void-with-young-guns-20180122-h0m0q2.html
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think most get all of that, just think it would have been more beneficial for the Brumbies and Australian Rugby if he had his surgery at the start of the year off rather than at the start of his year back.
I think most get all of that, just think it would have been more beneficial for the Brumbies and Australian Rugby if he had his surgery at the start of the year off rather than at the start of his year back.
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
Having had a critical meniscus tear and also being advised by my GP ( equivalent of Wallabies medical team) might I suggest to other posters and any athlete who reads this GET A SECOND OPINION FROM AN EXPERT - cos when I finally did, and I accept the surgeon was probably talking his own book, but the damage the torn meniscus did to the knee is another problem that I and DP will have to work through, physio was never going to repair the tear and the tear caused bruised bone - pain in itself. So when an elite athlete gets any niggle (DP, Jordy Reid and countless others ) use your health insurance and big pay packet to see a specialist. (And by the by, the Wallabies medical team may also have been talking their own book : you'll be fine Dave, it will work itself out, or something like that).